Dumbledore's Unspeakable Word.

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> 
> While I agree to some extent with some of your conclusions, I disagree with 
> the rationale.
> 

Kneasy:
Um. That signifies that I've reached the right answer in the wrong way -right?
Visions of an infinite number of monkeys bashing on an infinite number of
typewriters swims into my consciousness .....

> Note that Voldy has never heard the second half of the prophecy (indeed, 
> seeking it is what forced his hand to show himself!). Dumbledore has. As 
> far as we know, he is the only person alive who knows the full text (for 
> the record, although he has told the Order members that the prophecy 
> exists, that it concerns Harry, and that harry's survival is imperative to 
> his plans; I suspect that his "strict need to know" policy would have made 
> him stop short of letting them know what it said) and he's not going to 
> jeopardise that advantage (I must admit that one of my - many -  objections 
> to the plot of OotP is why the hell he hadn't simply destroyed the bloody 
> thing seeing as he has his own perfect record; as the most powerful wizard 
> alive, I'm sure he could have concocted a harmless facsimile for Voldy to 
> lust after).
> 
> Anyway, Voldy already had one AK bounce off the Potter brat 15 years 
> earlier, not to mention that he lost out in a duel between them a year 
> previously. There is no way on Earth that he's going to take the risk of 
> facing up to the kid again with (Dark) Lord knows (not!) what consequences. 
> 

Kneasy:
Ah - it all depends - most of all it depends on how suspicious you are.
Some fans read the books and accept these bits of the text as mostly factual
stuff. Interpretations then proceed using such canon statements as the baseline 
from which to start. Others ... er, well - it's a bit more convoluted than that.
Generally I refer to it as 'keeping my options open' but it's probable that
some readers react with 'he's lost his marbles again'.

It's always nice to have an independent confirmation of the 'facts' as stated
by any character. For instance - only one character has ever stated that an AK
bounced off Harry - and that was Crouch!Moody. Which is very odd, 'cos lots
of references are made to the 'fact' that Voldy intended to kill Harry (not in
dispute IMO) - but was that the only thing he intended to do? And if it wasn't
then maybe the spell that bounced wasn't an AK. Such fevered ramblings
eventually generated Possession Theory, which while there is no absolute
evidence, does explain many of the oddities that surface if AK was the sole
spell used.

Similarly we have a single source for that damn Prophecy - DD. (Want to bet
that the Ministry got their copy via DD? Yup.) Sybill has no recollection of 
any such thing and as for the 'eavesdropper' - well, we only have DD's word
for his existence too.

You see, I can't help but notice how convenient it all is.  
The Good Guys are losing. DD interviews a woman that he thinks has no
talent at all. He holds the interview in a pub (why?) she spouts a totally 
startling 'prophecy'; there is an eavesdropper (who?) who is spotted and
ejected part-way into the recitation (why would anyone listen in on a job 
interview?) And who did the throwing out? It wasn't DD 'cos the Pensieve
recording is uninterrupted, yet strangely he knows just how much of the
Prophecy is overheard. A Prophecy that, when Voldy follows it up, leads to
his dissolution and the end of the first Voldy war. 

A nice set of coincidences.
But as ever looking for a few more interesting plot complications, there is
another possibility.
The Prophecy was a fake, a set-up to lure Voldy into a trap.
The 'prophecy' was DD's words spoken unwittingly by Sybill.
The eavesdropper either a known Voldy supporter or more likely a DD 
supporter who had a communication line into the DE camp (Snape?)
There's also the as-yet unanswered and very apposite question of the
delay in Voldy reacting - something like 2 years! Just when was the info
about Sybill and her seance dropped into  Voldy's lap? At once - or maybe
 closer to the events at GH? Knowing that would be very useful indeed.
Just two families fitted the description - both associated with DD.
Harry was bait - but protected; so probably was Neville.

Now it may be totally wrong but it's a lot more fun (IMO) than a sequence of
fortunate coincidences. Much more satisfying if the downfall was planned
rather than just accidental happenstance, don't you think? A lot depends on 
how you view DD. Yes, he's the most powerful wizard east of the Pecos; yes, 
he's a staunch opponent of evil; yes he can *look* like a kindly old duffer - but
he ain't. He's the leader in a fight for survival; he's the one that comes up with
the cunning plans. Quite frankly IMO he's a devious old bugger, which would 
imply that JKR is just as sneaky.


> 
> In any event, to come back to what we're actually talking about, a 
> willingness to lose it is hardly equivalent to "life" itself, in terms of 
> any power that it may confer (or be of itself). So all in all, I simply 
> don't understand what you're getting at with your rationale.
> 

Kneasy:
And I  don't see how love could save him. 
Remember way back? When the more romantically inclined were positing
that Harry was saved at GH by the power of Lily's love? Turned out not to be
the  case, for it to work within the books it would imply that Lily loved more
than any other mother in the WW. No, it was magic that saved Harry. I sense
the same sorts of argument surfacing here - "Oh, it's love." Just show me
how Harry loves more or has more love than say, Molly has for her family. 
Yet do you doubt that if Voldy fixed his beady snake eyes on Molly she'd be 
a gonner?

When it comes to love what Harry wants is for somebody to love *him*.
He's the orphan in a cruel world. Sirius might have fitted the bill, but now
he's gone too. DD probably does, but right now Harry's rejecting overtures
from that source, DD's got too much explaining to do. Nope, sorry, I just
don't see anything exceptional in Harry so far as love is concerned.

Life -  yes there is something exceptional about Harry there, mostly how
often he's hung onto it when all the odds were stacked against. As an
example of how life (in a universal, general context) struggles to continue
despite the difficulties and drawbacks, then I think Harry makes a good one.
The fact that he accepts that it's not for ever and realises that he is mortal
does not detract from that IMO. 


> --
> GulPlum AKA Richard, who's wondering whether he now agrees with Kneasy, 
> except that it's by using a very specific and non-dictionary definition of 
> "love" and a very specific and non-dictionary definition of "life"...

Kneasy:
Careful. Or you'll be classed as one of the awkward squad, too.